In Australia it is compulsory for people over 18 to vote but I know that none of the bhikkhus or bhikkhunis here vote, I assume it would be the same for other countries too. My understanding is that their training is aimed at leaving the world, so why would they want anything to do with trying to control the world (eg. politics). The best person to ask about this would be a monk.

Personally I "donkey" vote which is a legal way of not supporting any political party in Australia, ideally I would like to opt out of even turning up at the booths.

With Metta,

Guy

Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return2) Throwing things away3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

Hi all, this might be of interest:Kathavatthu Sutta: Topics of conversation

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.

Ie. Politics

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the meeting hall and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he addressed the monks: "For what topic of conversation are you gathered together here? In the midst of what topic of conversation have you been interrupted?"

"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not."

"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.

I'm not really sure how far this one extends. But if you can't talk about it, the inference seems to be you shouldn't get involved in it. After all, politics are referred to here as 'bestial.'

What does everyone else think?

MettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Dugu wrote:Do monks follow politics? And do they vote? If not, should they? If no, should we?

Somebody with more expertise can please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in Burma and Thailand, the bhikkhus are not permitted to vote, whereas in Sri Lanka, they can (there are even some bhikkhu MPs in Sri Lanka).

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

BlackBird wrote:Hi all, this might be of interest:Kathavatthu Sutta: Topics of conversation

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.

Ie. Politics

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the meeting hall and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he addressed the monks: "For what topic of conversation are you gathered together here? In the midst of what topic of conversation have you been interrupted?"

"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not."

"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.

So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...Anyway.

Individual wrote:There's suttas where the Buddha himself gave political advice.

Respectfully, the Buddha spoke of the conditions of a nation's welfare. Which is a little different than the tireless debate and argument which penetrates the political system. Politics would be well described as a thicket of views. The Buddha's advice on this occasion, in my opinion - seeks simply to cut through that thicket.

However, semantics aren't really my thing so I'm willing to let this one go.

Last edited by BlackBird on Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

PeterB wrote:So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

PeterB wrote:So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

PeterB wrote:So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

If you're registered to vote and you don't, you cop a small fine.

Metta,Retro.

Well that would just have me reaching for the woad and refusing to register. Which I would regret. I have voted in every election since I reached the minimum age. But compulsion would force me to be contrary...

In the U.S. only about 50% of those registered actually vote. And only about 50% of those who are eligible to register actually do so (18 years old or greater).

That makes the turnout roughly 25%. And that is for presidential and national elections! For state and local elections, the turnout is much lower. (The 2008 election of Obama I think was an exception and the turnout was a little higher.)

In regard to monks voting, I think it is an individual preference and there is no specific Vinaya rule against it. I think it could be a skillful means for choosing someone who exemplifies compassion, kindness, fairness, and equanimity.

For example, if there were two candidates running for president and one openly called for bombing another country on flimsy evidence at best and the other candidate was opposed, then voting for the anti-war candidate could help promote the Buddhist compassionate ideals. In most cases, the choice is not that clear, but when it is, why not exercise some choice and try to bring some good to the politics.

PeterB wrote:So people are forced by law to turn up ? That seems to me to be the antithesis of democracy, which must include the right to opt out altogether if it means anything. Similar discussions have happened here in the UK after each of the most recent elections have seen a poor turn out. It has never progressed though because of an awareness that if you try to make Brits do things by compulsion it invariably backfires and you would have mass protests and even fewer turning up. The idea that voting should be made compulsory in Scotland is particularly droll.... That would definately bring out the blue face paint...

If you're registered to vote and you don't, you cop a small fine.

Metta,Retro.

That's insane. I can't believe Australians would pass such a law.

Compulsory voting should be required for any supposed Democracy. Low-turnout in American elections has resulted in a race to see who can cheerlead sections of the american people better. Compulsory voting means "turnout" is never a problem and that a real debate can be had where REAL politics can be discussed, rather than simply cheerleading to get the best turnout for your party.

David N. Snyder wrote:In the U.S. only about 50% of those registered actually vote. And only about 50% of those who are eligible to register actually do so (18 years old or greater).

That makes the turnout roughly 25%. And that is for presidential and national elections! For state and local elections, the turnout is much lower. (The 2008 election of Obama I think was an exception and the turnout was a little higher.)

In regard to monks voting, I think it is an individual preference and there is no specific Vinaya rule against it. I think it could be a skillful means for choosing someone who exemplifies compassion, kindness, fairness, and equanimity.

For example, if there were two candidates running for president and one openly called for bombing another country on flimsy evidence at best and the other candidate was opposed, then voting for the anti-war candidate could help promote the Buddhist compassionate ideals. In most cases, the choice is not that clear, but when it is, why not exercise some choice and try to bring some good to the politics.

Nah, turnout was pretty steady on the whole. The makeup of the turnout was high-ish (in the upper 20s I believe) but nothing approaching the massive turnout that the Nixon election gained. The problem is that while the turnout was high among minorities and youth, another part of the electorate was just kind of fizzled out. That is, the more republican parts of the electorate certainly weren't feeling the energy to get out and vote.